from Neverending:

Like I said the Federal district court claim construction is the LEAST confusing to explain to a lay jury because it has the least # of limitations:

NDOC Construction of the "entire ring oscillator" phrase:

"Providing a variable speed clock that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the central processing unit."

This is by far the clearest and best least limiting construction we could get and just about exactly the one we asked for. No difficult explaining to do to a jury of lay people and the opposition will not be able to argue that an that any off chip influence on the clocking of the CPU means they do not infringe because it was not added as a "limitation" to the wording. So if you have a ring oscillator that generates a signal that goes on to clock the CPU that is capable of varying based on manufacturing process, voltage or temperature you infringe. Anything you want to add to your microprocessor after that does not let you get off infringement. So you can bolt on a PLL or use an off chip crystal/reference and still infringe.